Crompton, Sean v. Division of Occupational Licensure (SPR 20260420)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 18, 2026 SPR26/0420 Malav Patel, Esq. Assistant General Counsel for Public Affairs Division of Occupational Licensure 1000 Washington Street, Suite 710 Boston, MA 02118 Dear Attorney Patel: I have received the petition of Sean Crompton appealing the response of the Division of Occupational Licensure (Division/DOL) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 17, 2025, Mr. Crompton requested the following: …copies of all records related to [an identified individual’s] real estate license application, Application No. IA 0003113210, submitted via the eLIPSE licensing platform on Mass.gov. … Accordingly, I request the following records from October 1, 2025 to the present: [1] Communications with PSI All emails, correspondence, call logs, notes, or records reflecting communications between any Board or Division of Occupational Licensure staff and PSI Services LLC that reference: [An identified individual] Application No. IA-0003113210 Exam eligibility or transmission of application data Communications with IT All emails, tickets, service requests, internal messages, or notes reflecting communications between Board/DOL staff and any internal or external IT personnel concerning [an identified individual’s] application, eLIPSE, or One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832 • Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Malav Patel, Esq. SPR26/0420 Page 2 February 18, 2026 transmission of data to PSI. Records evidencing transmission to PSI Any confirmation, submission record, system log, audit trail, transaction ID, batch report, or acknowledgment indicating that [an identified individual’s] application or exam eligibility was transmitted to PSI. Any records reflecting failed, delayed, or incomplete transmissions. [2] Internal communications All internal emails, memoranda, notes, or messages referencing: [An identified individual] Application IA-0003113210 PSI IT involvement Exam scheduling eligibility eLIPSE system records Application status histories, audit logs, or workflow records associated with Application IA-0003113210. Any error logs or exception reports related to [an identified individual’s] application. … October 1, 2025 to [D]ecember 17, 2025 or most current present day[.] Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR26/0102 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 23, 2026). In my January 23rd determination, I ordered the Division to provide the responsive records to Mr. Crompton on a rolling basis. The Division responded on February 6, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Division’s response, Mr. Crompton petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0420, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public

Malav Patel, Esq. SPR26/0420 Page 3 February 18, 2026 records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Att’y for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The Division’s February 6th Response In its February 6, 2026 response, the Division provided responsive records in redacted form and cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Additionally, the Division stated, “…please find all responsive records and response to the requester’s December 17, 2025 request. DOL now considers this appeal closed.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Crompton contends: … The Division’s production is limited to records through approximately December 15, 2025, despite the fact that:  My request expressly covers October 1, 2025 to the present;  Your Determination did not authorize any unilateral date cutoff; and  The Division has never affirmatively stated that no responsive records exist after December 15, 2025. … The Division’s assertion of completeness is contradicted by documented facts:  On December 31, 2025, PSI Services LLC contacted [an identified individual] stating that [an identified individual] was newly eligible to schedule [an identified individual’s] examination — a status change that necessarily required internal DOL action, communication, or system transmission after December 15.  [An identified individual] contacted me unsolicited, despite my prior communications being limited to [an identified individual].  [An identified individual] likewise contacted me independently, without prior direct communication from me.

Malav Patel, Esq. SPR26/0420 Page 4 February 18, 2026  The Division produced call log notes only for December 3, 2025, despite my having independent records of additional calls to the Division and the Board of Real Estate both before and after that date. … Accordingly, I formally demand that the Division: 1. Produce all responsive records from December 16, 2025 through the present; and/or 2. Provide a written attestation, signed by the records custodian or counsel, stating unequivocally that:  All records responsive to my request from October 1, 2025 to the present have been produced, and  No additional responsive records exist, including internal communications concerning [an identified individual], [an identified individual’s] application, or this request. … Based on Mr. Crompton’s appeal petition, he does not appear to be appealing the redactions under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. No Duty to Create Records Please be advised that the duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Further, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Further, the duty to comply with requests for records extends to identifying the agency or municipality that may be in possession, custody, or control of the public record sought, if known. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iii). In a telephone call between a staff attorney of the Public Records Division and the Division on February 17, 2026, the Division confirmed that it provided all records responsive to the request and that there are no additional responsive records. Conclusion Where the Division confirmed that it does not possess additional records responsive to Mr. Crompton’s request, and has no duty to create records responsive to the request, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Crompton is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies).

Malav Patel, Esq. SPR26/0420 Page 5 February 18, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Sean Crompton